State Of Washington v. Svein Arve Vik, 74803-3

Sandra Davis locked up her Lynnwood home on Sept. 26, 2012; the next morning officers found damage to a gate and a door and the gate lock nearby.
Early on Sept. 27, Bill Campbell saw a man leave Davis’s carport carrying a white plastic bag, place it in a Jeep, and get into the Jeep; Campbell also saw three other men leave the carport carrying boxes.
Campbell called 911; shortly after a white minivan and the Jeep left the scene.
Officers contacted two men near a white minivan; one was Svein Vik. A search of the minivan recovered many of Davis’s items and a baseball cap; bolt cutters were found in the Jeep.
A subsequent search of Vik’s garage produced multiple items belonging to Davis (including a rug, guitar, statues, platter). Vik gave varying explanations for possessing the rug.
Vik was convicted by a jury of residential burglary and possession of stolen property; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence he entered or remained unlawfully in the dwelling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Vik entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling	The State: possession of recently stolen property plus Vik’s presence near the scene supports an inference he entered the house	Vik: possession alone (without direct proof of entry) is insufficient to prove he entered or remained unlawfully	Affirmed — viewed in the light most favorable to the State, circumstantial evidence (possession of stolen property, presence near scene, matching description, damaged gate/door) permits a rational jury to find he entered the dwelling

State v. Larson, 184 Wn.2d 843 (2015) (State must prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (standard for reviewing sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Mace, 97 Wn.2d 840 (1982) (possession of recently stolen property alone is not prima facie evidence of burglary; may support conviction when accompanied by indicatory collateral evidence)
State v. Garske, 74 Wn.2d 901 (1968) (discussing indicatory collateral matters that can accompany possession to support burglary)